The liberal syndicate, aka the neocon/pnac/aipac money laundry burned all the 20th century monety writers, especially Milton Friedman.
The result is inflation from printing $6 trillion greenbacks is blamed on the virus, not their response to it!
Each Thursday the U.S. federal resrve’s asste books are published.
The Fed now holds more than $7 trillion in notes, hugely more than before the virus!
It actually added to its holdings last week, so much for tightening!
While bank deposits are over $3.4 trillion at reserve banks, paying 5.3%.
The petro dollar is gone Weimar, and this year the service on U.S. government debt goes over 1 trillion almost more than the feed money the pentagon sends to the various PAC’s.
My view of U.S. escalation is that it is no more consequential than Hitler’s V-1 on the operational and strategic sense of the conflict between pnac and the uncolonized world.
More sticks are being poked into the spokes of the PNAC's wheels. All those "notes" look good on paper until you need to actually use them, which is when you need a viable industrial economy. Did you ever make a boat out of newspaper when you were a kid? If so, how long did it stay afloat?
I am most incensed by the gaslighting among the approved economists!
My late brother was more educated and had direct experience than I and he was incensed by the ongoing wreckage in the “money and banking” establishment.
(Von der Leyen recently went a step further, arguing that “If you think of information manipulation as a virus, instead of treating an infection once it has established itself… it is much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated” ). Perhaps the Covid 19 so-called vaccinations were a covert implantation of nanotechnology that serves this purpose. All vaccinated people send an unknown Bluetooth signal.
There's considerable deviance related to the Covid Affair that's just beginning to be more widely known--The Outlaw US Empire's conspiracy to deny the efficacy of Sinovac and Sputnik V is one major case-in-point. The vast difference between the purposes of health care West versus Russia/China is profit versus wellness promotion, respectively, which points to the evil underlying the West's motives. Le Carre wrote an excellent story about it, "The Constant Gardener."
Much as I value Alastair Crooke, he fails to tell us how the 1970 "Limits to Growth" is flawed beyond attacking the messenger (i.e. a logical fallacy) i.e. asking entirely relevant questions about who funds, and whatever the aims are, of the Club of Rome.
No doubt we have to be very cautious of 'the messenger' in this instance, but a few simple logical steps validates the over all conclusion and direction of thrust of the conclusion of the "Limits to Growth" report:-
1. We live on a finite planet with finite resources.
2. We live at the bottom of a gravity well, and the energy needed to escape, and mine asteroids or live on the Moon or Mars or whatever will never be sufficient (thermodynamics) to scale up such an endeavour, simply does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities or density. e.g.
3. Ergo by definition we ARE reducing the total quantity and quality of available resources that feed modern industrial outputs.
So I'm confused why Crooke didn't acknowledge this? Yes my above conclusion has been corrupted e.g. we've been deceived by the Club of Rome / Trilateral Commission etc. sponsors e.g. focussing on one possible symptom (climate change) of resources extraction, thereby ignoring the above conclusion i.e. that thermodynamics of this pale blue dot will force humans civilization into de-growth, i.e. in under a century global population will HAVE to shrink perhaps back to numbers we had in pre fossil days, i.e. under 1 billion, meaning our only rational choice is: how will we manage the hard physical reality living at the bottom of a gravity well?
But the problem is the messenger. All that you say is true, but that doesn't mean we should let the bankers come up with a plan for us all that involves them doing well at the expense of the rest of us. Especially since, as you point out, they tend to focus on the wrong thing (a function of their blinding self-interest).
"The Rising Tide Foundation is committed to the belief that the improvement of scientific and technological progress is inextricably tied to the improvement of creativity and moral disposition of every member of society."
In other words they believe in non stop growth or what else does "improvement of scientific and technological progress" mean (whether its inextricably tied to whatever)?
The first question to ask: Was Malthus correct? No. Why? Because he was unable to predict technological advancement. Why is "Limits to Growth" flawed? It duplicates the same mistake as Malthus, amongst others, specifically it decries democracy and promotes a technocratic dictatorship--Globalism run by Globalists.
We live on a Petri dish. We call it a planet. An isolated pale blue dot. This Petri dish has a finite amount of agar nutrients in it. We scrape some bacteria (life) on the agar. Pop it in an incubator. Wait 2 billion years (for life to evolve and produce human civilization). And what do we see? All the surface and volume of agar nutrient has been used up. The bacteria (human global civilization of 8billion) having spread through out the agar covering every last corner of it, are now close to death. Pause. Same as the bacteria (human civilization) on a Petri dish, they are all dead now. This is ALWAYS the outcome of ALL closed systems due to thermodynamics. End of though experiment.
This was Malthus insight. To cite "technological advancement" (using the above metaphor) as being able to create new agar i.e. ignoring resource inputs for human civilization, 'ain't happening down the bottom of this gravity well. There is no magic replacement for high energy dense hydrocarbons (the key ingredient of many critical to the nutrient value of the agar in the above metaphor).
I don't disagree that Limits to Growth "specifically it decries democracy and promotes a technocratic dictatorship--Globalism run by Globalists."
But that is a second order reaction, amongst many possible reactions, to the primary observation: we're running out of agar (using the above metaphor). Once we've acknowledged how much agar we've got left, then we can argue about how to share it out.
I acknowledge the fact that Humanity will need to adopt/adapt to what is known as a steady-state political economy where material growth as the main goal will need to be replaced by the growth of wisdom, and I've written about that in the past. I've promised several previous commentators that I'd devote one of more articles to the issues of energy and future development and you make another who merits my addressing them.
Malthus was incorrect because he was too specific in his predictions. He didn't foresee the technological improvements in agriculture.
And because he was wrong there, all the people who have all the incentives in the world to keep the game going jumped on it and said everything was wrong.
But he's right about the ultimate question. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible (it shouldn't even need to be stated).
Many see the Earth as a closed system, but it isn’t completely. Yes, many major resources are finite during the human timescale but can be regenerated during the geologic timescale. My Big Question is, will humans develop the wisdom to keep their species alive as Earth goes through its changes which no human can prevent? Our 6 million years of existence is a drop in the bucket of geologic time. Can Humanity last for 100 million years? That would be an accomplishment, but the bacteria have existed for several billion years and are capable of biochemical changes humans can’t accomplish.
The liberal syndicate, aka the neocon/pnac/aipac money laundry burned all the 20th century monety writers, especially Milton Friedman.
The result is inflation from printing $6 trillion greenbacks is blamed on the virus, not their response to it!
Each Thursday the U.S. federal resrve’s asste books are published.
The Fed now holds more than $7 trillion in notes, hugely more than before the virus!
It actually added to its holdings last week, so much for tightening!
While bank deposits are over $3.4 trillion at reserve banks, paying 5.3%.
The petro dollar is gone Weimar, and this year the service on U.S. government debt goes over 1 trillion almost more than the feed money the pentagon sends to the various PAC’s.
My view of U.S. escalation is that it is no more consequential than Hitler’s V-1 on the operational and strategic sense of the conflict between pnac and the uncolonized world.
More sticks are being poked into the spokes of the PNAC's wheels. All those "notes" look good on paper until you need to actually use them, which is when you need a viable industrial economy. Did you ever make a boat out of newspaper when you were a kid? If so, how long did it stay afloat?
Yes.
I am most incensed by the gaslighting among the approved economists!
My late brother was more educated and had direct experience than I and he was incensed by the ongoing wreckage in the “money and banking” establishment.
I miss his critical thinking!
(Von der Leyen recently went a step further, arguing that “If you think of information manipulation as a virus, instead of treating an infection once it has established itself… it is much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated” ). Perhaps the Covid 19 so-called vaccinations were a covert implantation of nanotechnology that serves this purpose. All vaccinated people send an unknown Bluetooth signal.
There's considerable deviance related to the Covid Affair that's just beginning to be more widely known--The Outlaw US Empire's conspiracy to deny the efficacy of Sinovac and Sputnik V is one major case-in-point. The vast difference between the purposes of health care West versus Russia/China is profit versus wellness promotion, respectively, which points to the evil underlying the West's motives. Le Carre wrote an excellent story about it, "The Constant Gardener."
Much as I value Alastair Crooke, he fails to tell us how the 1970 "Limits to Growth" is flawed beyond attacking the messenger (i.e. a logical fallacy) i.e. asking entirely relevant questions about who funds, and whatever the aims are, of the Club of Rome.
No doubt we have to be very cautious of 'the messenger' in this instance, but a few simple logical steps validates the over all conclusion and direction of thrust of the conclusion of the "Limits to Growth" report:-
1. We live on a finite planet with finite resources.
2. We live at the bottom of a gravity well, and the energy needed to escape, and mine asteroids or live on the Moon or Mars or whatever will never be sufficient (thermodynamics) to scale up such an endeavour, simply does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities or density. e.g.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54012-0
3. Ergo by definition we ARE reducing the total quantity and quality of available resources that feed modern industrial outputs.
So I'm confused why Crooke didn't acknowledge this? Yes my above conclusion has been corrupted e.g. we've been deceived by the Club of Rome / Trilateral Commission etc. sponsors e.g. focussing on one possible symptom (climate change) of resources extraction, thereby ignoring the above conclusion i.e. that thermodynamics of this pale blue dot will force humans civilization into de-growth, i.e. in under a century global population will HAVE to shrink perhaps back to numbers we had in pre fossil days, i.e. under 1 billion, meaning our only rational choice is: how will we manage the hard physical reality living at the bottom of a gravity well?
But the problem is the messenger. All that you say is true, but that doesn't mean we should let the bankers come up with a plan for us all that involves them doing well at the expense of the rest of us. Especially since, as you point out, they tend to focus on the wrong thing (a function of their blinding self-interest).
Agree fcuk the banksters ! Hopefully the 'Unit' will accelerate their decline!
You should first read Matt Ehret and Cynthia Chung's works on this subject. Then all questions will be answered.
Thanks I have and don't trust them:-
"The Rising Tide Foundation is committed to the belief that the improvement of scientific and technological progress is inextricably tied to the improvement of creativity and moral disposition of every member of society."
In other words they believe in non stop growth or what else does "improvement of scientific and technological progress" mean (whether its inextricably tied to whatever)?
The first question to ask: Was Malthus correct? No. Why? Because he was unable to predict technological advancement. Why is "Limits to Growth" flawed? It duplicates the same mistake as Malthus, amongst others, specifically it decries democracy and promotes a technocratic dictatorship--Globalism run by Globalists.
Straw man.
We live on a Petri dish. We call it a planet. An isolated pale blue dot. This Petri dish has a finite amount of agar nutrients in it. We scrape some bacteria (life) on the agar. Pop it in an incubator. Wait 2 billion years (for life to evolve and produce human civilization). And what do we see? All the surface and volume of agar nutrient has been used up. The bacteria (human global civilization of 8billion) having spread through out the agar covering every last corner of it, are now close to death. Pause. Same as the bacteria (human civilization) on a Petri dish, they are all dead now. This is ALWAYS the outcome of ALL closed systems due to thermodynamics. End of though experiment.
This was Malthus insight. To cite "technological advancement" (using the above metaphor) as being able to create new agar i.e. ignoring resource inputs for human civilization, 'ain't happening down the bottom of this gravity well. There is no magic replacement for high energy dense hydrocarbons (the key ingredient of many critical to the nutrient value of the agar in the above metaphor).
I don't disagree that Limits to Growth "specifically it decries democracy and promotes a technocratic dictatorship--Globalism run by Globalists."
But that is a second order reaction, amongst many possible reactions, to the primary observation: we're running out of agar (using the above metaphor). Once we've acknowledged how much agar we've got left, then we can argue about how to share it out.
I acknowledge the fact that Humanity will need to adopt/adapt to what is known as a steady-state political economy where material growth as the main goal will need to be replaced by the growth of wisdom, and I've written about that in the past. I've promised several previous commentators that I'd devote one of more articles to the issues of energy and future development and you make another who merits my addressing them.
Cool. Thanks for your kind words. Looking forwards to your future energy / resources articles, here are some essential reads on this topic :-
https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2022/05/18/228-in-the-eye-of-the-perfect-storm/
https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/the-copper-conundrum-3b98704602c8
https://energyskeptic.com/2018/power-density-of-biomass-wind-solar-requires-too-much-land-to-replace-fossil-fuels/
Thanks for the links. I see that many point to the fallacy of the "Green Agenda."
Malthus was incorrect because he was too specific in his predictions. He didn't foresee the technological improvements in agriculture.
And because he was wrong there, all the people who have all the incentives in the world to keep the game going jumped on it and said everything was wrong.
But he's right about the ultimate question. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible (it shouldn't even need to be stated).
Many see the Earth as a closed system, but it isn’t completely. Yes, many major resources are finite during the human timescale but can be regenerated during the geologic timescale. My Big Question is, will humans develop the wisdom to keep their species alive as Earth goes through its changes which no human can prevent? Our 6 million years of existence is a drop in the bucket of geologic time. Can Humanity last for 100 million years? That would be an accomplishment, but the bacteria have existed for several billion years and are capable of biochemical changes humans can’t accomplish.